Coronavirus

[Archie]

world rankings populous per square mile

16-Netherlands= 1089/square mile
48- Switzerland= 420
159- Sweden= 60
171- Norway=44
172- Finland=41





seems like good matching countries to me

 

[Boner_18]

Reno. You're falling into the trap of saying you think social distancing doesnt work (or maybe you crazily believe that). Stick with the arguement that damage to personal freedoms/economic damage from social distancing is much greater than the value of loss of life. That's the winner here.

 

[Vegas Dave]

Couldn’t agree more.

That’s why I wondered aloud why you said “These.Numbers.Are.Going.To.Be.
Catastrophic.

I mean wtf is this?

What happened to this?

I’ve never claimed to have the answers.

I’ve only given my opinions (which I assume are welcomed on a democratic forum) as a 40-something who’s been around the block and watched the news whip everyone into a panic about hurricanes, Ebola, the swine flu, Isis, YOU NAME IT, only to have ultimately seen it blown way out of proportion time after time.

A couple of weeks ago it was fine for you to make opinion-based statements and educated guesses. I can't do the same?

 

[Vegas Dave]

Reno. You're falling into the trap of saying you think social distancing doesnt work (or maybe you crazily believe that). Stick with the arguement that damage to personal freedoms/economic damage from social distancing is much greater than the value of loss of life. That's the winner here.

+1. Interesting debate to be had about civil liberties or other long-term damages potentially being done. No debate at all to be had that social distancing isn't good for an infectious disease.

 

[Matty]

Stick with the arguement that damage to personal freedoms/economic damage from social distancing is much greater than the value of loss of life. That's the winner here.

Except that it's probably not:

Social distancing won’t just save lives. It might be better for the economy in the long run.

A study of the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic finds that cities with stricter social distancing reaped economic benefits.

www.vox.com

Okay, comparing vastly different eras is kind of pointless, but still. Arguing that our political leaders are willingly tanking the economy for no reason other than to save lives is ridiculous. They want to save the (long term) economy first.

 

[reno cool]

Reno. You're falling into the trap of saying you think social distancing doesnt work (or maybe you crazily believe that). Stick with the arguement that damage to personal freedoms/economic damage from social distancing is much greater than the value of loss of life. That's the winner here.

That's the argument for why it's wrong.
My argument regarding it working (and to what degree) is more of the question for analyzing the model

 

[Boner_18]

Okay, comparing vastly different eras is kind of pointless, but still. Arguing that our political leaders are willingly tanking the economy for no reason other than to save lives is ridiculous. They want to save the (long term) economy first.

Dont buy it for a second. What electable officials do you know that look beyond the next election? You work in congress or the Senate and all you want to be is NOT the guy that killed grandma. It's not tanking to save lives, its tanking to stay in office. You can always pin the lost job on a faceless evil virus.

 

[reno cool]

They want to save the (long term) economy first.

Yeah, they want to save the economy by starving out the poor, keep the rest under tight control, and most importantly, pursue their imperialist, warmongering goals, with the help of a weakened and disempowered domestic population

 

[Matty]

Yeah, they want to save the economy by starving out the poor, keep the rest under tight control, and most importantly, pursue their imperialist, warmongering goals, with the help of a weakened and disempowered domestic population

Your brain is a Stalinist dystopia.

 

[Matty]

Dont buy it for a second. What electable officials do you know that look beyond the next election? You work in congress or the Senate and all you want to be is NOT the guy that killed grandma. It's not tanking to save lives, its tanking to stay in office. You can always pin the lost job on a faceless evil virus.

Vast majority of these people have massive wealth and/or passive income streams. Their assets > their electability, especially for the older ones.

 

[Boner_18]

Key word there is massive. They're set, their kids are set and thier grandkids are set. They're trading in something more valuable than money (which they have a "massive" amount of).

 

[Archie]

Except that it's probably not:

Social distancing won’t just save lives. It might be better for the economy in the long run.

A study of the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic finds that cities with stricter social distancing reaped economic benefits.

www.vox.com

Okay, comparing vastly different eras is kind of pointless, but still. Arguing that our political leaders are willingly tanking the economy for no reason other than to save lives is ridiculous. They want to save the (long term) economy first.

woah that article says i'm valued at 11.5 million!

"I feel like a million bucks, but my money don't really feel like I do"

 

[Matty]

Key word there is massive. They're set, their kids are set and thier grandkids are set. They're trading in something more valuable than money (which they have a "massive" amount of).

Hmmm. I have no idea how it feels to be "set for life" but I bet that very few people feel that they actually are.

I dunno man.

 

[Archie]

That's the argument for why it's wrong.
My argument regarding it working (and to what degree) is more of the question for analyzing the model

so using Sweden as your canary in the coal mine like you brought up.

What kind of results would sway your opinions on how social distancing works or doesn't work comparatively, as it pertains to it being useful for analyzing the model?

Does Sweden peak at levels 10x that of neighboring countries with very similar densities and demographics?

 

[MrMonkey]

​

New article in USA Today .....

ALBANY, N.Y. – The majority of New York’s more than 4,700 deaths due to coronavirus were among men, and 86% of all deaths were among people who had underlying illnesses, such as hypertension and diabetes, new state data shows.

The statistics released late Monday offered the latest glimpse into how the rapidly spreading virus has impacted New York and made it the epicenter for COVID-19 in the nation.

Of the 4,758 deaths in New York since the first on March 14, 61% were men and 39% were women, the state Department of Health reportedon its new data portal.

In addition, 63% of the deaths were among those age 70 and older, while 7% of the cases were those 49 and younger.

And 4,089 of those who died had at least one other chronic disease, the records showed:

• The leading underlying illness was hypertension, which showed up in 55% of the deaths.
• Next was diabetes, which was diagnosed in 1,755 deaths, or about 37% of the cases.
• Other top illnesses found in those who died from coronavirus were hyperlipidemia; coronary artery disease; renal disease and dementia.

 

[CASPERWAIT$]

Don’t most people over 40 have hypertension though Monkey?

 

[reno cool]

Mr.M. I hate to say it but most America has underlying conditions. I probably have 5 of em

 

[reno cool]

so using Sweden as your canary in the coal mine like you brought up.

What kind of results would sway your opinions on how social distancing works or doesn't work comparatively, as it pertains to it being useful for analyzing the model?

Does Sweden peak at levels 10x that of neighboring countries with very similar densities and demographics?

Let's see what the totals are after its all over. It might lead to a different time span, for one, they might be done early